Riverside Superior court defames, libels and slanders attorneys of vexatious litigants.

In the never ending saga of the “game” of a kangeroo court who invents rules and procedures not governed by statute a litigant who was declared vexatious but is now represented by an attorney presented a family law motion for filing to the Riverside Superior Court. The clerk of the court and her supervisor refused to file it, stating that the attorney who is representing the parent is acting as a puppet for the vexatious litigant and that the MC 701 form needs to be accompany the filing. CCP section 391 specifically references in pro per, as does the MC 701 form and if you are represented by an attorney the MC 701 form does not apply.   BUT the clerk of the court and her supervisor would not file the presented litigation in violation of California rules of court 1.20.a and in the process intends to defame, libel and slander the attorney as vexatious as well.

A day later, the supervisor apologized to the parent for her actions, and filed the motion but that does not compensate the parent for the time, frustration and outrageous remarks that have to be dealt with.

Advertisements

One comment on “Riverside Superior court defames, libels and slanders attorneys of vexatious litigants.

  1. Finder’s fee offered: is there ONE rule, procedure, statute, evidence code, judicial canon, amendment right this court has NOT violated?
    Pro Per litigants, judicially battered, defamed, slandered, belittled, vilified and dehumanized can prove beyond reasonable doubt that the taxpayer-salaried occupants of the Riverside Superior Court play hopscotch with the law, which seems to be a foreign concept to them as they consider themselves above the law. Let’s lend them a helping hand and remind them that “”Misbehavior in office, or other willful neglect or violation of duty” by a clerk is punishable as contempt under Code of Civil Procedure §1209(a)(3). Under Canon 3C of the Code of Judicial Ethics, a judge’s administrative responsibilities include ensuring staff and court personnel under the judge’s direction and control observe “appropriate standards of conduct.” As of 2011, the failure by Judicial Branch employees to comply with any state court rule is a violation of the Whistleblower Protection Act, and constitutes government misconduct in the same category as corruption, malfeasance, bribery, theft of government property, fraud, coercion and similar types of misconduct. Employee conduct that is economically wasteful, involves gross misconduct, incompetency or inefficiency is also covered by the act. The act is enforced by the California State Auditor. Court employees who violate court rules and other laws also violate Tenet Five of the California Court Employee Code of Ethics. “

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s